The Term "Race"

T

tastybrain

Mmm Mmm Good
Registered Senior Member
In my high school anthropology class (way back when) i remember the teacher stating that "races" (the ethnic kind, not the competitive kind) do not exist. I found this another example of political correctness making bafflingly ignorant statments.

She explained that the traits people commonly attribute to certain "races" are not found in all individuals of the "race". Therefore, they do not exist. Hmmm...

Here's a bad example of how I view the logic of this statement: The stars in a "constellation" are not in the same solar system. Therefore, constellations do not exist.

Is there really a need for us to be afraid of a term merely because the ignorant use it to justify their hatred? I think not.

Wouldn't it just be better to say that "race" is not a scientific term?

Am I splitting semantic hairs?
 
Originally posted by tastybrain
The stars in a "constellation" are not in the same solar system. Therefore, constellations do not exist.
Click to expand...

bad analogy

read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html

Race not reflected in genes, study says

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically.

The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal wrote in their report, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Yet races do exist as social constructs," they said.

They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart, genetically, 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome island on the west coast of Africa.

But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair color, the researchers found.

They next tested two groups -- 173 Brazilians classified as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white.

They used the 10 genetic markers that differed between people from Portugal and Africa, but found little difference among anyone in their study.

To their surprise, they found maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African.

This suggested European men often fathered children with black and Indian women.

"It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48 percent)," they wrote.

"In essence our data indicate that, in Brazil as a whole, color is a weak predictor of African ancestry," they concluded.

"Our study makes clear the hazards of equating color or race with geographical ancestry and using interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other, as is often done in scientific and medical literature."
 
I am not sure whether race has a genetic basis but my opinion is this: all birds are birds yet there are black-birds, starlings, cookoos, pigeons etc. It is in this way that different animal races are named too: the african swallow, asian hornet etc All humans are still humans but there are different types of humans and surely these come from areas too: chinese, english asian etc. I am not 'racist' but in the same way that animals are classified there must be some way that humans can be classified. I agree with tastybrain that categorization is used for the wrong purposes but i dont think that this should rule out categorization (incidently it is science that wished to categorize: they want to reduce thinggs as far as possible so there is at least an x and then it can be found whether x causes y ;) ). I do also agree that there is no specific genetic componant to race however race must come from the area of origin i.e. chinese people do look very different from africans and europeans. If someone has a 99% genetic make-up of an african then they are of African race. However in the contemporary world there is so much mixture of genetics and race (especially in the west) that it would be hard to say, unless new 'races' were found. This could be said to nullify race anyway but surely if races are 'interbreeding' then new races are being made. It happens in dogs! Surely the denial of human races existence is because of how classification has been used in the past for the wrong reasons and maybe because people do not like to look at the animals and think that we are not much different from them. (This would not however explain the popularity of evolution)
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: The Term "Race"

Originally posted by Eflex tha Vybe Scientist
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html

Race not reflected in genes, study says

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically.

The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

The methodology used makes a mockery of the notion of race as subspecies. Here is a comparison of two unmixed populations: http://www25.brinkster.com/humanrac...e.asp?popid1=20&popid2=7&dbname=aluInsertions

The distance is 234 genes in this instance.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal wrote in their report, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Brazil is a highly mixed group, and the Portuguese are mixed with sub-saharan africans.

"Yet races do exist as social constructs," they said.

Yes indeed, for populations such as Brazil and Portugal.

They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart, genetically, 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome island on the west coast of Africa.

Why was the comparison with africans, with which the Portuguese are mixed, instead of perhaps Japanese?

But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair color, the researchers found.

They next tested two groups -- 173 Brazilians classified as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white.

Classifying mixed populations into racial categories based upon colour strikes me as laughable, and politically motivated. Are blonds a different race to brunnettes?

They used the 10 genetic markers that differed between people from Portugal and Africa, but found little difference among anyone in their study.

Who would have guessed!

To their surprise, they found maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African.

Applying such notions to populations like the N.E. asians and northwest europeans is a false comparison, and no inference can be drawn it.

This suggested European men often fathered children with black and Indian women.

"It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48 percent)," they wrote.

"In essence our data indicate that, in Brazil as a whole, color is a weak predictor of African ancestry," they concluded.

I could have told you that before you even tested.

"Our study makes clear the hazards of equating color or race
with geographical ancestry and using interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other, as is often done in scientific and medical literature."

Thus speak the moral, who appear to have consciously re-defined the concept of race to achieve a desired result, broadcast worldwide, and given credence by CNN.
Click to expand...

Portugal is the poorest nation in europe, and brazil is a third-world country which is even more abundant in resources than the united states, and has a population of 157 million.
 
Pseudo-science, super-pc

don't get my title wrong. I appreciate science, but in the same way I appreciate art and literature (though not to the same extent); however, i do believe that scientists make claims much akin to the alchemists and religious mad-men of the ancient and medieval world.

The scientific method. It's great. Control groups, test for this, test for that. test again. observe. record. test again. A good system. the problem? Humans utilize it. Nothing produced by any human or even collective group of humans operating under an organized system can be as purely objective as science claims to be. I think science and religion are merely two facets on the diamond of perception. Let's look into another facet on that diamond:

Common sense: it tells us that yes, races do exist. but merely as "social constructs". Hogwash. What about the historical and geographical aspects of a group of people. I adamantly agree with King's post questioning the methods of this study into the genetic viability of races. Note how people were classified into the category of race: They considered themselves white. They considered themselves African, etc.. I'd like to know where their ancestors came from.

Obviously, we can't deny that we all come from common ancestors. We can't deny that most of the world is intermixed. Some of us, more than others. Most individuals, myself included, do not fit into any one racial category.

Granted, race is not a fantastically useful term. There is so much confusion. But why don't we just through out the term completely: I don't have a number of racial identities, no, that's not accurate! I'm an example of a differentiated genomic spread. Ah, that's much better.

My contention is not so much with what scientists think, so much as with how they say it, e.g. "Races do not exist except as social constructs." This is tantamount to saying that ethnicities do not exist except as social constructs. They exist as historical and geographical markers as well.
 
Exactly tastybrain!
The Airedale Terrier was developed about a hundred years ago in the country of York from the ancient Working Terrier. "The King of Terriers," the Airedale was named for the Valley of the Aire in England, where lots of small game flourished. Originally known as the Waterside Terrier and used as a vermin hunter. The breed was later crossed with the Otterhound to make him a better swimmer. In addition to his role as a small game hunter, the Airedale has been used to hunt big game in Africa, Indian and Canada, and as a police dog and army sentry dog in World War II. Today the Airedale is primarily a companion dog, but there are still working lines out there. Some of the Airedale's talents are guarding, watchdogging, hunting, tracking, military work, police work, and competitive obedience.
Click to expand...
Cross-breeding with dogs has made a new race and why should this be any different with humans. The majority of the human population have some element of cross-breeding within them but people do not like to look at this. There has not been (at least i hope not :eek: ) so much manipulation as with the case of dogs. It is not a social construction as there really is a new race.
 
hmmm...

well, despite my feelings about the term race... I am apprehensive about considering the emergence of a "new race". what exactly would that be? when people use the term "a new race of..." i get itchy all over. for instance, a new race of genetically modified superhumans. a new race of people who have good genes. (modified or not).

it makes me uncomfortable to hear vague statements concerning "a NEW race". what do you mean, Neville?
 
I mean a 'pure' hound breeds with a 'pure' corgie (if these are both a 'pure' species) then a new race is formed. It is part hound and part corgie. It is a new race.
 
It mans basically the same thing as a cultivar in plants. A subgroup within a species who breeds true in isolation but may breed with outside groups with no difficulty.

THe varieties of dogs are also about the same, though in cases far more extreme. No two groups of humans come anywhere nearly as different as lassie and the taco-bell dog.
 
great!! Im glad to see that i didnt fail my exam because i said that Darwins theory of evoluotion didnt say that we all evoloved from the same organism!!! Thanks a lot!!!
 
The "race not reflected in genes" study is certainly interesting and may well be true, but I would agree that it will be some time before truly definitive statements of this nature can be made.

But I do believe that race is more of a social construct than a genetic one.

Look at it this way. Many many people who are really only 25% or less of African descent still consider themselves to be "African Americans". They identify with the "African American" cultural group, even though from a genetic inheritance standpoint, they may be 75% caucasian.

The reasons for this are purely cultural. Of course, it may be that members of society at large also identify this person with the "African American" cultural group based on a few facial features, but if we are to define race genetically, this does not make so much sense. The presence of a few prominent traits, such as slightly dark skin tone and black, curly hair, is insufficient data to classify an human organism as of "African" descent.

The fact is that a large portion of humanity falls into the "mutt" category. Where does that leave the concept of race? Many of these "mutts" will still chose to identify with or be quasi forced by society to identify with a particular "race" although they are genetically too far distant from what would be considered a "pure" member of this race to really be included from a genetic standpoint.
 
My father signs a different race on every census and he hasnt been lying once.

Someone who is 1/16th cheroke qualifies for membership in the cheroke nation. :p
 
"race" is purely social. It only existed in are heads for the purposes of banding together and hating others. Heck I got a email saying I should join the “Ben” club because all people named Ben should stick up for each other, now come on! :p
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
"race" is purely social. It only existed in are heads for the purposes of banding together and hating others. Heck I got a email saying I should join the “Ben” club because all people named Ben should stick up for each other, now come on! :p
Click to expand...

I recieved an e-mail saying lets all join the human club, and kill other forms of life, enslave them, and eat them. There are no boundraries anywhere except in your head. I like having anal sex with dogs myself. Who are you to stop me, you fascist bigot?
 
ooooooook :bugeye: yes everything is in are heads but jess man we did not need to hear that!, please for the LOVE OF GOD next time keep your fetishes to your self. You could get band for that kind of @#$% man.
 
Re: ethnicity

Originally posted by tastybrain
are ethnicity and race the same thing?
Click to expand...

no ethnicity is more on focused on your cultural heritage, like Latino and Chicano are different ethnic groups but are actually any race of Mexican or South American heritage.
 
i would agree with the statement that from a biological viepoint there are no human races...

if you want to use it for political reasons it is fine, but just remember you are then officially a racist (you blindly accept definitions of a racist viewpoint and perpetuate them).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top